Research Reports
Reorganization of Rural Policies for Making Livable Rural Areas
-
AuthorSong, Miryung
-
Publication Date2007.12.01
-
Original
Objectives and Methods
The purpose of this study is to examine the status of rural areas, to forecast their future, and to establish strategies and a paradigm of rural policies in the view of making livable rural areas. This study is a two-year collaborative research. The first year topic is to examine the rural status and to seek policy subjects. The second year topic is to forecast the future of rural areas and to analyze a new paradigm of rural policies. Therefore, the first year report aims to give a definition of “making livable rural areas,” analyze the rural status, figure out outcomes and problems of the previous and present rural policies, and develop new rural policies.
The methods are literature reviews, statistical data analysis, expert surveys, questionnaire surveys of rural and urban residents, interviews with central and local government officials, and econometric analysis to evaluate rural policies. We developed especially the Rural Development Index(RDI) to evaluate livable rural areas.
The Definition of “a Livable Rural Area”
This study defines a rural area as a living place, a working place, a leisure place, and a community place. A livable rural area is 1) an area that has facilities and services enough to settle down there, 2) that has active local economy enough to provide local residents with many job opportunities, 3) that has beautiful and clean environment and landscape, and is rich in attractive amenities, and 4) that has a good communality between inhabitants and various opportunities to participate in local activities.
The Examination of Rural Status
We used both objective and subjective indexes to evaluate the current rural situation from a new perspective on the livable rural area. The RDI was used as an objective diagnosis based on statistical data. The rural areas connected closely with metropolises, cities, and suburban towns have high scores on the RDI. On the other hand, most rural areas(Guns) show lower scores in the RDI. The RDI says that traditional rural areas are nice places for a leisure, but don’t have good capacities as a living place, a working place, and a community place. There exists a big gap particularly in the working function among rural areas. The serious problem is that the bi-polarization of rural areas in four functions has been deepened as year has gone by.
On the subjective evaluation of urban and rural residents, most of them say that rural areas have been weakly developed in living and working functions, but have strengths as leisure and community places. Many people wish to settle down in regions that show high scores on the RDI. Therefore, rural polices should focus on improving living and working conditions and on maximizing the amenity potential of rural areas as leisure places in order to make livable rural areas.
Outcomes and Problems of the Rural Policies
The government has introduced many rural policies to improve rural areas. According to our rural policy evaluation, they have contributed to a significant improvement of rural areas as living places, but have not put an emphasis on developing working and community powers. According to an econometric analysis of rural policy outcomes, even the rural development program that experts said had the most positive effects had beneficial effects only in limited sectors, without much impact on improving the overall circumstances of rural areas.
As for making livable rural areas, the present rural policies for the total rural areas should be turned into programs that can reflect local characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses, and that can respond to new local demands of rural areas.
Reorganization of Rural Policies for Making Livable Rural Areas
The objective of rural policy for making livable rural areas is to reorganize policies that can balance rural development toward a living place, a working place, a leisure place, and a community place. First, the policy purpose should be differentiated by region because rural areas have different situations and problems. Second, rural program should not focus on only the living sector but contain various items for all the living, working, leisure and community sectors. In addition, when a local government selects a rural program, the municipality should be endowed with stronger responsibility and authority. Third, on the operation system of rural policy, a coordination system between departments in the central government should be needed from the time of planning a program. The operation year of a policy should be longer than now, and the program should be executed according to a local plan. The most important thing is to institutionalize innovative assistance and residents' participation to improve the renovation capacity of municipal governments, and cultivate local partner groups that can participate in local activities and programs of the central government.
Researchers: Mi-Ryung Song(Ph.D), Yong-Lyoul Kim(Ph.D), Joo-In Seong, Joo-Young Park, and Yoon-Jin Heo
Research period: 2007. 1 ~ 2007. 11.
E-mail: mrsong@krei.re.kr
- Next
- An Approach to Advanced Agricultural Policy toward the Open Economy
- Prev
- A Comparative Study between Korea and Japan on Endogenous Rural Development